Short Break...

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

David is reading too much hype from Breitbart, WattsUpWithThat, FoxNews, World Net Daily, Hot Air, etc. and passing it along. Quite a feeding frenzy.

The letter occasioned by a suggestion from Sen Sheldon Whithouse (D-RI) and organized by Dr. Shakula (previous head of the Institute of Global Environment and Society at George Mason Univ) was sent to Obama suggesting that a racketeering charge be considered vs the climate skeptics in that their actions parallel that of the tobacco companies/support groups where racketeering was ultimately used. 19 other scientists signed it (out of 100’s it was sent to for consideration - it did not get universal support from the climate scientists who are more into the science than the politics). No action has been taken yet and probably won’t be. And no one is suggesting that climate skeptics be jailed. But that has not stopped the frenzy.

IGES had been dissolved prior to sending the letter and the big claims that IGES/Shakula are merely trying to pad their pocketbooks is thus nonsense. They (and the 19 climate scientist signees) are legitimately concerned about the effects of climate change and frustrated by the inaction they know is needed.

Climate Research amounts to $2.7B /year in the US which includes all monitoring by NOAA, NASA. Only $326M to NSF for academic research (see ). Most of this funding goes to equipment, travel, grad students, overhead and not to the climate scientists themselves who are paid through their universities at rates that are still generally lower than they could get industry. It is true that doing important, leading research pads their resumes but that is only a portion of their motivation.

Compare that to the continuation of the fossil fuel gravy train that amounts to profits of $100Bs/year. In fact it was . Profits from the $2.7B/year spent on Climate Research is surely less than 5% (or $135M/year). The argument that GW/CC concerns are profit-driven by the climate scientists is pure poppycock.

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

You are an irrational man to unquestionably believe all that Breitbart, etc, say. Most have been discredited so many times, one would think they would have no readership. But such is the partisan divide.

Year after year since 2000 () at least 95% of actively published climate scientists are AGW believers and are concerned about what has already occurred (e.g. historical droughts out west, floods in the east just in this country, let alone places like Pakistan) and even more concerned about the future given the trajectory we have measured.

A published this year says 99.4% of working engineers/scientists in the pro-oil province of Alberta believe that the global climate is changing for the worse (only 6 in 1077 disagreed or were even undecided). But that the cause of those changes are debated with oil/gas employed engineers/scientists being 51% skeptical that humans are the cause - no surprise there.

When I say xx% of climate scientists believe in AGW, I mean academics who have studied and published on the matter without working for an affected industry that colors one’s perspective.

That’s all from me for a while - I am very busy on productive matters.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Keith You are understandably a lot more impressed with "Climate Scientist" than many of us.

After all the satellite models that where so wrong, saying last weeks hurricane was going to strike NYC, were developed by created and interpreted by climate scientist. Now, so were the European models that predicted the path quite accurately.

So some Climate scientist get things right some times,some times they don't.

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]